Sharon Rondeau is reporting that Capt. Pamela Barnett (Ret.) has founded awebsite and initiative which seeks to assist citizens wishing to challenge Obama’s constitutional eligibility and name placement on the presidential ballot for 2012.She and her team are currently compiling election law from all 50 states and will be providing forms and sample letters which registered voters can use to file a complaint.

Barnett has recently appeared on The Roth Radio Show and the Andrea Shea KingRadio Show to detail her plan to challenge Obama’s eligibility based on the claim that he is not a “natural born Citizen” as required by Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Barnett also operates the website “Unlawful President” and will be releasing a book entitled Never Vetted, the first chapter of which was published on the internet at no charge for informational and educational purposes.

In May of last year, Barnett filed a lawsuit against California Secretary of State Debra Bowen challenging the eligibility of Damon Dunn, a Republican candidate running for Bowen’s position. Barnett explained that she had researched California election law in regard to challenging candidate qualifications. “I found out that there was law for challenging the ballot, and part of the Barnett v. Dunn case goes to the criminal negligence of the California Secretary of State and the Attorney General,” she said.

The Post & Email asked Barnett who initiated the idea of a ballot challenge campaign, and she responded, “I did. The Dunn case has been with me since 2010, and I kept it in the back of my mind that if nothing else works, we should challenge the ballot in regard to Obama. In trying to come up with a solution, I thought about it hard. After seeing the total failure of our government, I decided to find all the election laws, make a website, lead a national movement, and overwhelm the Democrats in all 50 states.”

The Obama Ballot Challenge website has been operational for about three weeks. Barnett is director, and Gary Wilmott and George Miller are filling key positions. Barnett is seeking people who can market the website by placing links on other sites about Obama Ballot Challenge. “The goal is to get as many complaints in as many states as possible to inform more people about the fraud crimes going on. We also want more people to know the meaning of “natural born Citizen.”

We asked Barnett how long it took her to research election law in every state, and she replied, “It’s still ongoing. I still need research help. Most states have their election law on the internet, and we’ve done 26 states to date. Looking through election law is not an exciting thing to do, and I’ve already had a few people say they just can’t do it (laughs). It’s not hard; you just have to find the law and start looking for key words such as “contest” and “challenge.” Most secretaries of state that we found have only a ministerial duty, but some of them have more than that but did not follow their states’ laws after receiving complaints. The difference now is that a lot of the deadlines were missed, so many of the complaints that were filed became civil fraud cases. There, you have to prove that you have standing, and some of them sued the secretaries of state, who then wiggled out of it, saying they didn’t have a ministerial duty to check on eligibility. With ballot challenges, you have instant standing.”

The Post & Email asked, “Is it true that all states have a specific ballot challenge period and that the challenge can be made by an average person?” and Barnett responded, “Yes. You have to be a registered voter. Two states which are standing out as undemocratic are Wisconsin and Virginia. Wisconsin says that it’s the Congress’s job to vet candidates, and if you have any questions you should call the FEC. They’re usurping power from the law. That’s the state where we’ll probably need an attorney. In other states it must simply be a registered voter. You can file the challenge, it’s free, and often you can submit it electronically via email or fax.”

Barnett found that some states allow a ballot challenge up to 30 days after an election if new information comes to light about a candidate’s eligibility, even allowing for voiding of an election. “The Obama State Ballot Challenge 2012 is there to assist people in finding the law and steering them in the right direction. We’re probably going to come up with a generic ballot complaint which addresses the “natural born Citizen” issue, which would be appealable up to the Supreme Court.”

Barnett stated that while she was developing the Obama Ballot Challenge project, the Article II SuperPac started up. The Post & Email asked her, “What is the relationship between the two new groups? Is there a nexus?” and she responded, “We are strategic partners, and we’re putting out a press release on that.”

The Post & Email has interviewed the director of the Article II SuperPac organization and will be publishing a report within the next few days.

Of the purpose of each organization, Barnett explained, “We’re more of the action arm; they’re a long-term educational initiative which will be creating a defense fund for people who are challenging the ballot in their states who need an attorney. Whatever comes up as an immediate concern will hopefully be able to be covered with the funds raised. We’re also looking at challenging Republican candidates such as Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal if they are placed on the ballot because they are not natural born Citizens.”

Barnett explained that Obama is not the first occupant of the White House to have his eligibility challenged. Of Chester Arthur, who served as president following the death of President James Garfield after having been shot by an assassin, Barnett said, “He wasn’t even an American citizen, because at the time of his birth, the 14th Amendment had not been passed, and his father was not a U.S. citizen.” The White House biography does not mention anything about Arthur’s personal background except that he was “born in Vermont.” She stated that Arthur’s father did not naturalize until his son was 14 years old, which made the son a U.S. citizen but not a “natural born Citizen.”

We asked Barnett if she knew how many complaints are in the process of being filed, and she responded, “There are people from at least ten states working on ballot challenges now. We’re there to make sure they have prepared a proper complaint according to the law in their states.”

Barnett believes that people “cannot just stand on the sidelines” when it comes to the 2012 election. “If we can keep Obama off the ballot in one state, hopefully others can follow. I was originally planning on waiting until the general election, but we know how long it can take going through the court process. A lot of these challenges will not be resolved at the administrative level and lawsuits will be filed which can go all the way to the Supreme Court. Standing will not be an issue, an injury will exist, and the court will have jurisdiction. We’re overcoming all of the obstacles that were there before.”

Summarizing the scope and purpose of ObamaBallotChallenge.com, Barnett said:

We cannot wait for Congress, the federal judiciary, or the Department of Justice to enforce the law regarding Obama’s eligibility. They have failed us. The Obama State Ballot Challenge puts the power back into the hands of the people. It gives any voter a course of action to take to ensure that the Constitutionally ineligible Obama is not re-elected.Filing a ballot complaint to keep Obama off the ballot in their state is free, easy, and doesn’t require an attorney. This process gives instant “standing” to the complainant to have their ballot complaint heard on the merits. The complaint absolutely needs to be filed within the legal time frame for their state. The Obama State Ballot Challenge staff will offer assistance with complaints to those who request it.If in the future the administrative complaint is rejected, we hope that our strategic partner, the ART2 SuperPAC, will have a legal fund to assist those who need it.It is the goal of Obama State Ballot Challenge to inspire citizens to file complaints in every state so that the American citizens might finally receive justice against the Un-Constitutional, usurper Barack Obama… and to ensure that he will not be re-elected by finally having the mandate of the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett enforced within the several states.

Barnett also said that hearings concerning ballot challenges normally take place within 30 days after the complaint is filed.

What is the Obama State Ballot Challenge?

This is a national call to action to help ensure Article II, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution is upheld by stopping Obama from getting back in the White House for another 4 un-Constitutional years. The Obama State Ballot Challenge 2012 project was created to help organize and report on the Herculean effort to keep Obama off the Presidential election ballot in 2012 because he does not meet the Constitutional standard of Natural Born Citizen that was established by Minor v. Happersett, and because of his massive fraud crimes committed before and during his tenure in the White House.

We need your help now! Challenges can be filed in the primary season. You can file your own complaint with your state without hiring a attorney and without any cost. We are working on providing a generic example complaint that you can use for reference. Please go to the Contact page and email the Director Pamela Barnett if you can file a complaint in your state. See if we have election law on your state by clicking on your state page above. See the Obama State Ballot Challenge 2012 page of this website for more details.

The first ballot challenge is ongoing in New Hampshire and citizens have additionally filed ballot challenges in Georgia, Hawaii, Tennessee, Arizona, and Alabama, and many more are in the works. We need to challenge Obama in all 50 states many times. More news to come soon on new ballot challenges and a new partnership that could provide legal resources to citizen voters filing complaints. Join our campaign to stop Obama in 2012 by filing a ballot complaint or volunteering to help with advertising our effort to recruit more people to file complaints.

We do this because we are a nation of laws, and the political ruling class has failed to uphold the law regarding Obama's usurpation. We do it for God, country, and family.... and for justice. We will also fight against any non Natural Born Republican that appears on the Presidential ballot. This is not a political initiative, it is about respecting the Constitution.

We all lose if we continue to be a nation of men and not of laws. This enables corruption in Congress, the White House and the Courts. As it stands now, they are all operating above the law. This state ballot initiative brings the power back to the states to ensure their citizens are voting for only qualified candidates.

This site will mostly concentrate on news related to the Obama State Ballot 2012 initiative. Please subscribe for email updates. Your privacy will be safeguarded to the best of our ability. Your emails will not be shared with anyone. Also, sign up on our Facebook page and Twitter.

New Organization To Educate and Mobilize the Public on the Significance of “natural born Citizen” and the 2012 Election“NO DIVIDED LOYALTIES”by Sharon Rondeau

Logo from the newly-organized Article II SuperPac (art2superpac.com)(Dec. 17, 2011) — Anorganization which intends “toeducate the majority of voters on what their vote truly means to the future of America in the 2012 election” and thesignificance of the “natural born Citizen” clause has officially been launched.Article II SuperPac (art2superpac.com) seeks to ensure that Article II of the U.S. Constitution is upheld in all future elections such that all candidates for president and vice president, beginning in 2012, meet the definition of “natural born Citizen.” The group will not be making political campaign contributions to any candidate.Director Helen Tansey, who operates the blog “The T-Room,” joined forces with numerous constitutional bloggers to form the new entity, which also plans to raise money for a legal defense fund for citizens facing legal expenses in challenging a candidate’s constitutional eligibility. Ar2SuperPac will be working as a strategic partner with ObamaBallotChallenge.com, operated by Capt. Pamela Barnett (Ret.), who also interviewed recently with The Post & Email. The following interview outlines the scope and future plans for the organization.MRS. RONDEAU: Who conceived of Art2SuperPac, and how was it launched?MS. TANSEY: Over the last four years, I would read constantly that individuals would become very excited regarding the legal challenges against Obama, believing that something was going to happen. When the judge would rule “You have no standing,” it was a deflation of spirit. I watched the excitement and the deflation over and over again. After a while, many people started to say that the court system wasn’t the way to go; maybe we needed to go in a different direction. I had wished folks would put together a vehicle that would help us. So I decided after reading these things for several years that it was time to do something.My background is that of political campaigns and issue advocacy campaigns, so I had the organizing skill set. To be totally candid, I never to use them again, because I’d left it all behind in 2008. But after watching this and all of these gallant efforts, I finally decided, “We’ve got to do something.” So I started reaching out to a handful of bloggers with whom I had a relationship and for whose work I had a high regard for the work they were doing specific not just to Barack Obama and his lack of qualifications, but also other presidential candidates who were being touted.We started meeting in June 2011 and worked for six months to build a truly independent vehicle designed to be a voice for the people with regard to the 2012 political campaigns. That’s pretty much how it got started.It’s been a roller-coaster ride for all parties concerned who have filed lawsuits and memorandums of complaint, put their names out there. Everyone has done everything they could possibly do to bring about some remedy for the people, and it just hasn’t occurred. Because it was considered a political question, the question then became, “How do we engage this energy, this vibrancy, this wisdom, and inject it into the 2012 political campaign season?” That’s the goal: to fire up people, get them engaged. We’re going to be doing a lot of groundwork and grassroots building. It’s about all of us coming together and truly working with one voice to make sure that when it comes to the 2012 election that either a) through Pamela’s efforts we keep the unqualified candidates off the state ballot, or b) if we’re not successful there, then we go after the members of the Electoral College, and if we’re not successful there, we keep going until we have exhausted every possible remedy to make sure that no unqualified candidate gets on the presidential ballot.MRS. RONDEAU: It sounds as if yuou’re using the 2012 election as an opportunity of sorts.MS. TANSEY: Absolutely, because in a political race, everybody is out saying something about the candidates. Well, there’s no voice for Article II. We always want to inject for Article II.MRS. RONDEAU: How do you intend to educate people about what Article II “natural born Citizen” means?MS. TANSEY: The first thing that has to be done when one begins to organize such an effort is to build a volunteer base. As you’re doing so, you’re raising funds, and you train the volunteer base. So some of the things you do typically in a political campaign as well as in an issue advocacy campaign is canvassing. You leave flyers at doors and use direct mail. You do coffee chats and invite your neighbors to your home. We provide scripts and all of the resources, materials and tools so that that individual who is willing to host a coffee or canvas a neighborhood or have a table outside of their grocery store has gotten the talking points from us. They got the messaging and materials from us. So it’s truly doing the grassroots work so as to reach the average citizen who is somewhat tuned in, not tuned in at all, or very tuned in.Depending on the funding we raise, we will also be doing a great deal of internet advertising. We’ll be using YouTube as a vehicle as well as Google videos and some of the other video groups to get our message out. We will be working to target key states and even key districts within those states to get volunteers where there’s a persuadable vote. For example, Virginia is a targeted state by both Democrats and Republicans, and say an unqualified candidate gets on the ballot. What we do is target the really conservative or and/or the really red counties and/or the really blue counties, and we do very specific messaging within those counties where a large portion of voters reside. So it’s really strategic and much more laser-focused. Because we don’t have the financial wherewithal, nor do we have the body of individuals such as volunteers where we can do all 50 states. We have to be focused and strategic as to where we’re putting our resources so it has the greatest impact we can possibly have.MRS. RONDEAU: So you know you’ll be focusing on certain counties within certain states?MS. TANSEY: I would think right now we’re honing in on the states we’re going to be targeting. Within those states, we will break it down and identify the counties. We’ll look at voting records and intensity of voting in 2008. We’ll also go back to 2004. We’ll be looking at all the statistics to identify those targets. So we’re currently honing in on the states, and in those states will be those areas where we will highly likely wage a campaign of getting several citizens to wage a ballot campaign.The difference between Pamela Barnett’s efforts and Article 2 Super Pac’s is this: Pamela is focusing on one individual: Obama. She is looking at all 50 states. We’re looking to target specific states. Where we’re helping the strategic partner relationship is where we’re working together to target those key states. We’re working to together to target those key states and put forward a campaign and be able to wage that campaign and hopefully be successful. She’s taken on all 50; we’re just being more strategic.MRS. RONDEAU: What is the structure of your organization, and how many people are on your team?MS. TANSEY: It’s called a kitchen cabinet, and on the kitchen cabinet there are five individuals. All of them have been engaged in this fight for at least four years. We have support from outside the kitchen cabinet which is helping to advise, giving us ideas and supporting the effort. The core group which has met over the past six months has the same five people, all of whom have been extraordinarily committed. At some point we’ll release in a press release who we all are. We’re trying to stagger the information right now so that we keep people coming back. So soon, rather than later, we’ll announce who we are and where our specialties lie, where our skill sets lie…and you know all of them.MRS. RONDEAU: In your daily conversations with people who might not have been active on the internet and cognizant of the Obama eligibility issue, do you find that they now have a questions about it?MS. TANSEY: I would say that in 2008, prior to the election itself, when I had that conversation with neighbors, friends and colleagues, they looked at me as if I had a third eye and thought I was absolutely crazy. Fast-forward to 2011, when I’m having that conversation with some of the same people and also new ones, they are much more in tune, much more aware that something is wrong, and they are more open to having a conversation. Whereas in 2008 it was a wall, and in 2011, there is some movement in that wall. It’s a subtle shift in people being more open to learning, whereas in 2008 they weren’t open to that at all.MRS. RONDEAU: What would you say to someone who says, “I think he was born in Hawaii, so that makes him eligible; case closed?”MS. TANSEY: What I would say is what Leo Donofrio said almost four years ago, and that is that this gentleman could have born on the Supreme Court steps. It doesn’t matter; the fact of the matter is that his father was not a United States citizen. Therefore, his birth does not meet the definition of Article II. So for us, it’s all about the Constitution. It’s all about the law. It’s not about all of those other items that have popped up over the course of the last four years in regard to his background. For us, it’s strictly and solely about the law of the land, and the law of the land requires that the individual who runs for president of the United States is a natural born citizen, which means “citizen parents and born on U.S. soil.” We’re just all about following the law. So all of the birth certificate stuff, all of the social security number stuff, although valid, and it has its place; it’s important; but when you look at the law, this man admits that when his father was born, he was a British subject. That clearly tells you and me that Obama was born as a dual citizen. Therefore, he is not qualified. It does not matter where he was born. It matters only that under the law that he is not qualified under Article II.MRS. RONDEAU: Many people do not seem to be aware that citizenship involves the parents. Pamela mentioned to me during her interview that years ago, when a woman married, hercitizenship, if different, changed to that of her husband, which would have produced two U.S. citizen parents.MS. TANSEY: It’s all about allegiance. That is really the key word. The reason that the Founders put in the “natural born Citizen” clause was that the president would also serve in times of war as the Commander-in-Chief. Having a Commander-in-Chief with dual or even trial citizenship means, by definition, that that individual would have divided loyalty to the United States of America. So the Founding Fathers put the natural born citizen clause in to the Constitution to ensure sole allegiance. to the United States of America and her national security.If you look at the President’s oath of office, you will see that he is the only elected officer who swears sole allegiance to the United States. When you compare the president’s oath to that ofsenators and congressmen, they’re different. Sole allegiance feeds in to the military. Our young people who say, “I’m going to serve in the military” deserve nothing less than a commander-in-chief who is only loyal to them, and no one else.MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think Obama has shown signs of foreign loyalties?MS. TANSEY: I would say that when he was on the campaign trail, he was talking “red, white and blue,” and he did a bang-up job persuading people of his authenticity. But when you look at his policy decisions, his national security apparatus, you can clearly see that this man is more global in his thinking and witht he resources and tools that the American society has built, including the military. He has signed so many bills; the most recent one which Sen. John McCainand Sen. Carl Levin sponsored has language to detain Americans without the right of habeas corpus. That clearly demonstrates a lack of loyalty to the protection that the Constitution demands. So, yes, his policy decisions clearly demonstrate, in my opinion, that his loyalty is notto the United States of America and her citizenship; it’s global. And we are not global; we are the United States of America.MRS. RONDEAU: The election is about 11 months away. When do you expect that your organization will be in full swing?MS. TANSEY: We’ll get into full swing after the first of the year.MRS. RONDEAU: And you are looking for volunteers and financial support?MS. TANSEY: Absolutely. If we don’t have people on the ground as well as the financial wherewithal to be able to inject our Article II message into the political debate,, we’re just going to be spinning our wheels. So yes, those two pieces are critical. MRS. RONDEAU: Do you have any thoughts on what could happen if Obama were determined to be ineligible?MS. TANSEY: The 2012 election is going to a a critical one, because if an unqualified individual, whether it’s Obama or on the Republican side with Marco Rubio as vice president, it doesn’t matter; it’s a turning point for the United States of America. If we elect unqualified candidates and they make it into the office of the presidency or the vice presidency, then in my humble estimation, the Constitution will be dead. So for me, to answer that question, the line in the sand is now. If we don’t rally and come together to make sure that our Constitution, even though on life support, remains in place so that we have four more years to do what we need to do, we no longer live in a constitutional republic.MRS. RONDEAU: Do you believe that if you can get your message across to enough people about presidential eligibility, we can reverse the damage that’s been done?MS. TANSEY: That’s a great question! I’m naive enough to believe in the American people. I believe strongly and passionately in the common sense, in the patriotic spirit of the citizens of this once-great country. I believe that if we’re successful in pushing back in 2012, we have four years to engage and keep doing what we have to do peacefully to restore our constitutional republic. So yes, I’m naive enough to believe that. I realize that there are others out there who absolutely see revolution or some sort of revolt on the horizon. I’m not allowing myself to go there, because I continue to keep faith and place my faith in the American citizens.

If you doubt Barack Obama was born in the United States and doubt his eligibility to serve as President of the United States, yet another poll has just confirmed that you're not alone. Public Policy Polling (PPP), a Democratic polling company (yes, you read that right, a Democratic polling firm), just released the results of its latest poll on December 18 and some of the more shocking findings were, yet again, totally ignored and buried by the LameStream Media.

Among those results, a whopping 52% of self-identified caucus goers in Iowa said they either believe that Barack Obama was not born in the United States (31%) or said they were not sure if Obama was born in the United States (21%). Again, the media totally ignored this bombshell and decided, instead, to report another finding of the poll, namely that Congressman Ron Paul is gaining an edge among Iowa caucus goers.

And here's another shocking revelation from the poll. Just in case you may be thinking that only "rabid TEA Party types" doubt Obama is eligible to serve as President of the United States, the same poll found that a whopping 74% did not consider themselves to be members of the TEA Party movement and moreover, 28% described themselves as either "very liberal," "liberal," or "moderate."

While we're on the subject shocking trends possibly uncovered by the PPP poll, here are some more interesting findings, also ignored by the LameStream Media, which could indicate that Obama is doomed to be a one-term president.

Among the poll respondents, only 55% claimed that they participated in the 2008 Republican Iowa Caucus. 32% claimed they didn't vote in the 2008 caucus and 13% actually claimed that they voted in the Democratic Caucus in Iowa in 2008. Those findings should be very disturbing to Team Obama because they could indicate that a massive shift may be occurring across the nation. At least in Iowa, a massive ground-shift is taking place as people are either switching teams or becoming engaged for the first time.

The PPP Poll also may have discredited yet another myth that the GOP establishment and the LameStream Media have been beating like a cheap drum; namely that Republicans are mainly looking to a candidate that "can beat Barack Obama." According to the PPP Poll only 32% of respondents listed a "candidate's ability to beat Obama" as the most important criteria in deciding which candidate to support and a clear majority (56%) claimed the candidates’ stands on the issues were the most important criteria.

Of course, the PPP Poll is not the first poll showing that large numbers of Americans still doubt Obama's eligibility. A number of nationwide polls over the past two years have confirmed that doubt has been wide-spread for some time. The most recent of these polls is a June 2011 Wenzel survey which indicated that even 28% of Democrats wanted Congress to investigate Obama's eligibility AFTER the publication of Obama's alleged long-form birth certificate on the Internet.

Even a CNN poll taken back in August of 2010, which was heavily weighted toward Democrats, indicated that 6 in 10 of Americans doubt Obama was born in the United States. The LameStream Media continues to ignore the questions over Obama's eligibility but the American people refuse to let the issue die and, this much is sure, it will likely be the issue that dare not speak its name in the November election.

"He has not said that he will not do it. And he's also not said that he will," Matt Romney said about his father releasing his tax returns. "I don't know the answer to that."

"I'm not sure he knows the answer to that, but he'll do everything that he needs to. He's certainly not afraid of anything. He's not hiding anything," the younger Romney said at a campaign event in Concord, NH.

"I heard someone suggest the other day that as soon as President Obama releases his grades and his birth certificate -- then maybe he'd do it," he said.

New Hampshire produced the first state constitution on January 5, 1776, prior to the American Revolution(Jan. 1, 2012) — On January 3, 2012, several members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives will hold a press conference with the primary purpose of informing New Hampshire citizens and registered voters that Barack Hussein Obama may not be eligible to serve as president and therefore should not have his name appear on the 2012 presidential ballot.The time and place are tentatively set for 10:00 a.m. outside of the Legislative Office Building in Concord.The website of the New Hampshire House of Representatives provides the following history regarding its beginnings:Although threatened with reprisals from the British Crown and a bitterly divided constituency, New Hampshire’s leaders set the course for self-government in January 1776. Determined to keep the government close to the people, our forefathers fixed the size of the House of Representatives as a direct ratio to the state’s population. The first House consisted of 87 members, each one representing 100 families. As time passed and the population increased, the number of Representatives grew, until there were 443. In 1942, a constitutional amendment limited the size of the House to 400 but not less than 375 members. As a result, the New Hampshire House is the largest state legislative body in the United States.New Hampshire has the largest House of Representatives in the nation. The Concord Monitor has stated that New Hampshire has “the most localized representation of any state in the country.”On November 15, 2011, Atty. Orly Taitz filed a complaint with the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission regarding the placing of Obama’s name on the state ballot, citing his use of a social security number not assigned to him as well as having presented two forged birth certificates as proof that he was born in Hawaii. Several state representatives joined the complaint, and citizens from around the country filed challenges as well. A U.S. Army reserve retired colonel has launched a campaign to prevent Obama’s name from being included on the New Hampshire ballot.The New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission responded to Taitz by holding a hearing on November 18, during which Taitz presented her case challenging Obama’s constitutional eligibility, focusing on the crimes which she alleged he committed.Although the New Hampshire Secretary of State’s office has disallowed candidates from running for the presidency due to foreign birthplaces in the recent past, the decision of the Ballot Law Commission was that because Obama completed the application and paid the requisite $1,000 fee, it could not prevent his name from appearing on the 2012 ballot.Atty. Taitz has since stated that “massive election fraud” is occurring in New Hampshire because it appears that in 2008, boxes of ballots were left out on tables rather than locked in a vault, which Gardner admitted in a video to be a deviation from standard protocol.Nine members of the New Hampshire House attended the hearing of the Ballot Law Commission, one of whom was Rep. Laurence Rappaport (R-Coos). Rappaport stated that there were nine representatives present at the Ballot Law Commission hearing and that some or all of them organized the press conference to be held on Tuesday, January 3, 2012.We first asked him about his reaction to the outcome of the Ballot Law Commission hearing, he responded, “I was extremely disappointed.”We then asked him about the investigation called for by Attorney General Michael Delaney regarding alleged misconduct on the part of some of the representatives at the Ballot Law Commission hearing. Rappaport’s response was, “There were two investigations. One was by the House Security, run by Randy Joyner, and he reported to the Speaker of the House, and the Attorney General asked the State Police to investigate. Neither one of them contacted me, probably because although I was there, I never said anything. The results of the investigation, as I understand it, were that there were no threats made, and it was basically a non-event.”Rappaport said that at the time we spoke with him on December 31, a statement to be made at the press conference was in second-draft format. Working on the statement with him are Reps. Lou and Carol Vita and Harry Accornero.“What we really need to do is emphasize that Barack Obama was not eligible and is not eligible to become president. At the Ballot Law hearing, the Commission and the Assistant Secretary of State said publicly, under oath, on the record, that their authority was only to see that the paperwork was properly filled out and that the $1,000 fee was paid. If you go back a little farther, you find out that they had disqualified a man named Sal Mohamed and another named Abdul Hassan. There are letters, of which we have copies, signed by Karen Ladd, the Assistant Secretary of State. So we applied for a rehearing, which was denied, and we applied to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, and last week they denied us a hearing. We can provide complete copies of all of these challenges.”The Post & Email asked, “Were you surprised that your own state Supreme Court refused to hear your appeal?” and Rappaport responded, “Yes, I was surprised.” He stated that in the letter he received, having been one of the plaintiffs, no reason had been provided.Rappaort described the purpose of the press conference:Our biggest concern is that the public becomes aware of what’s going on. We think that the public does not understand, and it is our effort to try to enlighten them. I would cite three things: First of all, there was Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations, which gave the definition at the time of the Founders. Second, there was the case Minor v. Happersett from 1875, which established the definition of “natural born Citizen” as one who has two American-citizen parents. We have tons of evidence that Obama’s alleged father was not a citizen. He never held a green card and was never a resident alien. In fact, the truth is he was thrown out of the country.Rappaport also cited Senate Resolution 511, passed in April 2008, which declared that John McCain was a natural born Citizen by virtue of having two U.S.-citizen parents, but that Obama was not held to the same standard, and he “didn’t know why.”The Post & Email asked Rappaport, “Do you think that most of your constituents support what you are doing?” and he responded, “Yes. Obama is definitely not very popular in northern New Hampshire.” He stated that Coos County is the largest land mass in the state, has only about 30,000 residents, and was the reason he moved there. New Hampshire has a total of about 1,300,000 residents.As to his reason for questioning Obama’s eligibility, Rappaport said, “We all swore an oath to two constitutions: the state constitution and the U.S. Constitution. I take my oath very seriously, and I feel that I’m required by that oath to do this. I feel very strongly about that. I’ve received a death threat on this go-around and a lot of letters from people who disagree with me. I’ve been called names, but I’ve never gotten a reasoned explanation, not one. I feel as if everyone is claiming ‘This is a settled matter, but I haven’t heard that.’”We then asked him, “Do you believe the April 27, 2011 purported birth certificate being released to the public is what they’re considering the point which ‘settled’ it?” and he responded, “It didn’t come from him specifically; it came from the ‘White House.’ It is my opinion that not only is it a forgery, but it is a lousy forgery. I printed it from the White House website, and I was able to take it apart using Adobe Illustrator. There were something like 12 different layers. Through a process called ‘flattening,’ which puts all the layers together such that they can’t be separated, the layers should have been flattened, although a document expert could have still determined that it was a forgery.”Rappaport stated that his background was in electrical engineering and that he “wrote computer software.” He said his skills include laying out a website, although he sometimes “hired other people” to do things beyond his skill level and is not a computer “expert.” Other New Hampshire representatives also have stated that they believe the image is a forgery.The press conference is expected to last about 30 minutes, and New Hampshire media will be notified. “There’s no guarantee that any major media will cover it, but my biggest hope is that major media is finally waking up. When I was growing up, I read The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. Back then, The Times, in particular, was a really good newspaper. What you read on the front page was news, and what you read on the Editorial page was opinion, and the two were not mixed. Today, the news is highly biased. I feel as if The New York Times and The Washington Post report on a story only if it’s something they agree with. If it’s something they don’t agree with, it doesn’t appear anywhere. If it’s something that they mostly agree with, then you’ll find it on page 40.”Rappaport is 71 and serving his second term in the New Hampshire House. He stated that the organizers of the press conference would have preferred to have more time to plan, but the New Hampshire primary is fast approaching on January 10 and they want to inform the people of what they believe has transpired. The group will also invite the attorney general and all New Hampshire representatives. “My plan is to put out an announcement to all representatives inviting them to support us and to come,” he said.Final details of the time and place will be released shortly.

As if any of this 'birther' non-sense wasn't ridiculous enough on its own, it's time to throw Orly Taitz in the mix. Why people insist on this birther nonsense, and following the nutjob that is Orly Taitz is beyond me.

It's not like there aren't legitimate and powerful criticisms of Obama on the merits.

I was also amused by this gem from Laurent Rappaport: "I printed it from the White House website, and I was able to take it apart using Adobe Illustrator. There were something like 12 different layers. Through a process called ‘flattening,’ which puts all the layers together such that they can’t be separated, the layers should have been flattened [...]"

So let me get this straight... He printed it, and somehow, the layers were preserved in the printout? I think someone is very confused about how computers and printers operate. Par for the course for someone who's 71, I guess.

Georgia's flag contains the phrase "In God We Trust" under a sentry guarding the state constitution(Jan. 3, 2012) — Atty. Orly Taitz has posted on her website an order from Judge Michael Malihi denying the request of an attorney representing Barack Hussein Obama to dismiss three ballot challenges filed respectively by Taitz, Atty. Van Irion, and Atty. J. Mark Hatfield on behalf of Georgia registered voters and others.

Taitz represents four presidential candidates and a Georgia voter, David Farra; Irion represents David Welden, a Georgia voter; and Hatfield represents Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, both Georgia voters.

The Post & Email published an article on January 2, 2012 regarding Taitz’s ballot challenge in Georgia as well as in other states.

Also on January 2, 2012, The Post & Email spoke with Atty. Van Irion, who described his ballot challenge on behalf of David Welden. Irion had stated that a hearing was scheduled for January 26, 2012, and we have contacted him to inquire as to whether or not that hearing will take place given today’s order from Judge Malihi.

In his order, Malihi wrote, in part:

The Georgia Election Code (“the Code”) mandates that “[e]very candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.” O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(a).

The Post & Email had published another Georgia voter’s petition asking that a special grand jury be convened to investigate the non-response of Secretary of State Brian Kemp to the voter’s previous FOIA request and formal letter inquiring as to the information Kemp relied upon in 2008 to place Obama’s name on the ballot. The voter cited the same statute as Malihi in contending that registered voters have a right to challenge candidates’ qualifications for any office. The voter, Millard Blanchard, claimed that Kemp had broken the law by failing to remove Obama’s name from the 2012 presidential ballot.

Judge Malihi appeared to support Blanchard’s claim in his decision:

Both the Secretary of State and the electors of Georgia are granted the authority under the Code to challenge the qualifications of a candidate. The challenge procedures are defined in Code Section 21-2-5(b), which authorizes any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate to challenge the qualifications of the candidate by filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b).

A former secretary of state, Karen Handel, utilized the law when she disqualified someone from his candidacy for local office.

Of the new development, Taitz stated on her website, “I still can’t believe this…Judge Malihi, Deputy Chief judge of the Administrative court in GA, ruled, that Obama’s motion to dismiss is denied. He will have to stand trial and prove his eligibility for office…Now judge Malihi is sending a message: ‘nobody is above the law.’”

Questions have swirled since 2008 regarding Obama’s constitutional eligibility for the office of president. While he claims a birth in Hawaii, many experts deemed the long-form birth certificate issued on April 27, 2011 a forgery. Obama also claims having been born to a foreign father who never held U.S. citizenship, thereby raising the issue of whether or not he meets the criterion of “natural born Citizen” as stated in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

The Post & Email is aware of at least one researcher who has stated that Obama falsified his entire background and that he was actually born in New York City to two U.S.-citizen parents but sent to live in Indonesia as a toddler. Trowbridge has asked Obama to “step forth in integrity.”

Today in Concord, NH, several state legislators held a press conference to inform the public about what they believe could have been election fraud committed in 2008 by Barack Hussein Obama if he was not constitutionally eligible to seek the office of president. They have also objected to the denial by the New Hampshire Supreme Court to review a decision by the state Ballot Law Commission to include Obama’s name on the ballot for the 2012 election. The Commission as well as the Secretary of State’s office claimed they were not responsible for vetting candidates, but in both 2011 and 2008, the Assistant Secretary of State had disqualified one candidate, respectively, for failing to meet constitutional eligibility requirements for the presidency.

In 2010, a candidate for U.S. Congress from Texas was disqualified by the Secretary of State for apparently having a party affiliation as he was planning to run as an Independent.

A challenges to Obama’s eligibility has also been filed in New York, and a website with national scope has been established to assist voters to do so in each of the 50 states.

On December 15, 2011, Defendant, President Barack Obama, moved for dismissal of Plaintiffs' challenge to his qualifications for office. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this contested case pursuant to Chapter 13 of Title 50, the "Georgia Administrative Procedure Act."

For the reasons indicated below, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. 1

I. Discussion 1. The Georgia Election Code (the "Code") mandates that "[e]very candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought." O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(a).

2. Both the Secretary of State and the electors of Georgia are granted the authority under the Code to challenge the qualifications of a candidate. The challenge procedures are defined in Code Section 21-2-5(b), which authorizes any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate to challenge the qualifications of the candidate by filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b).

n a date set by the Secretary of State . . . the state executive committee of each party which is to conduct a presidential preference primary shall submit to the Secretary of State a list of the names of the candidates of such party to appear on the presidential preference primary ballot." O.C.G.A. § 21- 2-193. On October 6, 2011, Secretary Kemp issued a notice to the chairman of each political

1 Because Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is denied, in the interest of efficiency, the Court finds it unnecessary to wait for the Plaintiffs' responses before denying the motion.

Page 2 of 4

party to notify them that the deadline for submitting the list of candidate names for the 2012 presidential preference primary was November 15, 2011. On November 1, 2011, the Executive Committee of the Democratic Party submitted President Barack Obama's name as the sole candidate for the Democratic Party. To be timely, complaints challenging a presidential candidate's qualifications in the presidential preference primary had to be filed no later than November 29, 2011. Plaintiffs, as electors eligible to vote for Defendant, timely filed challenges with the Secretary of State before the deadline of November 29, 2011.

4. In the instant motion, Defendant contends that Georgia law does not give Plaintiffs authority to challenge a political party's nominee for president in a presidential preference primary because Code Section 21-2-5 does not apply to the presidential preference primary.

5. Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this Court finds that the cases cited by Defendant are not controlling. When the Court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the "first step . . . is to examine the plain statutory language." Morrison v. Claborn, 294 Ga. App. 508, 512 (2008). "Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but forbidden. In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning." Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other "natural and reasonable construction" of the statutory language, this Court is "not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning." Blum v. Schrader, 281 Ga. 238, 240 (2006) (quotation marks omitted).

6. Code Section 21-2-5(a) states that "every candidate for federal and state office" must meet the qualifications for holding that particular office, and this Court has seen no case law limiting this provision, nor found any language that contains an exception for the office of president or stating that the provision does not apply to the presidential preference primary.

O.C.G.A. 21-2-5(a) (emphasis added). Although the word "candidate" is not explicitly defined in the Code, Section 21-2-193 states that the political party for the presidential preference Page 3 of 4

primary "shall submit to the Secretary of State a list of the names of the candidates of such party to appear on the presidential preference primary ballot." O.C.G.A. 21-2-193 (emphasis added). Accordingly, this Court finds that Defendant is a candidate for federal office.

7. Code Sections 21-2-190 to 21-2-200 set out the procedures of the presidential preference primary and also provide no exception to the Section 21-2-5 qualification requirement. This Court finds no basis under Georgia law why the qualification requirements in Section 21-2-5 would not apply to a candidate for the office of the president in the presidential preference primary.

8. Accordingly, this Court finds that Defendant is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.

The liberty Legal Foundation has announced that the case pending in Georgia, challenging Obama’s eligibility, has been ACCEPTED.

This is great news considering Obama and his team of attorneys had been actively trying to have this case DENIED!!

The Georgia court in agreeing to hear the case could well be setting the stage for other states in which quite similar cases are pending. Arizona and Tennessee both have such cases waiting right now.

This case, in Georgia, deals specifically with the Natural Born Citizen issue.

In a previous article, we brought up the Minor vs Happersett case from 1875 in which the Supreme Court defined a NBC as one who has 2 parents which were citizens at the time of the subject’s birth. We also cited 3 other cases in which the Supreme Court, previous to the Minor case, said the same thing.

For the first time in dozens of court cases challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, a judge has ruled that Obama must, in order to be a candidate on the Georgia ballot for president in 2012, meet the constitutional demands for candidates for the office.

A hearing has been scheduled later this month for evidence on the issue that has plagued Obama and his presidency since long before he took office. At issue is the constitutional requirement that a president be a “natural-born citizen.” Some allege he was not born in the U.S. as he has claimed and, therefore, is not eligible.

Others, including top constitutional expert Herb Titus, contend that the term “natural-born citizen,” which is not defined in the Constitution, would have been understood when the document was written to mean the offspring of two U.S. citizens. That argument is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision

Under that standard, Obama could not qualify, because his father, as identified on the “Certificate of Live Birth” image released by the White House, was a foreign national who came from Kenya to study in the U.S. and never was a citizen.

The ruling came today from Judge Michael W. Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings.

A group of New Hampshire lawmakers asked the state attorney general's office Tuesday to investigate whether President Barack Obama meets the eligibility requirements to appear on the state's ballot, after their previous attempt to remove his name from the ballot was rejected in November.

Republican state Reps. Laurence Rappaport and Carol and Lucien Vita, say that Obama is not a natural-born citizen because his father was Kenyan. "This is not a birther issue, not a consideration of where Mr. Obama was born," Rappaport said, according to the New Hampshire Union Leader. "Our concern is only if he is a natural-born citizen."

The Congressional Research Service wrote in 2011, "There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one's parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be president."

Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961. The White House released the president's long-form birth certificate in April after his campaign released a scanned copy. Some, however, refuse to believe the veracity of the document.

The attorney general's office doesn't plan to respond. "There's no request in it," said Associate Attorney General Richard Head, according to the Concord Monitor. "I honestly can't figure it out."

New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley said it showed how "crazy town" has taken over the statehouse.

The New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission rejected an effort in November led by the group's attorney, "birther queen" Orly Taitz, to remove Obama's name from the ballot. After the commission unanimously rejected the effort, members in the crowd shouted "Traitors!" and "Shame on you!"

Assistant Attorney General Matt Mavrogeorge and Assistant Secretary of State Karen Ladd locked themselves in an office and called authorities because they feared for their safety, saying that crowd members were banging at the door and yelling. The state attorney general has asked state police to investigate the incident.

Lawsuit Filed Against Hawaii Department of Health on Behalf of Duncan SunaharaLawsuit against the Hawaii Department of Health has been filed by Hawaii Attorney Gerald Kurashima on behalf of Duncan Sunahara, Virginia Sunahara's brother. The case has been assigned to Judge Nishimura. Dean Haskins of the Birther Summit will be making a public announcement about this case very soon. Stay tuned for further updates.

Virginia Sunahara was born on Aug 4, 1961 and died the next day. Her death was announced in both theHonolulu Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin. Her name is in both the 1960-64 birth index and 1960-64death index.But when I asked for a non-certified copy of her abbreviated birth certificate the HDOH told me thatthey have no records responsive to my request. On previous requests for other COLB I had been told that I could not get a copy because I did not have a direct and tangible interest. But in this case they flat-out told me they don't have a birth record for Virginia. Even though their birth index says they do.

Either the HDOH lied about having no records for her, or they queried her name and the computer no longer has that record under her name, even though it was under her name when they printed the 1960-64 birth index sometime around March of 2010. What happened to Virginia's birth record? Was the name on it changed to Barack Hussein Obama II so he could have her BC#? The HDOH needs to be audited, to find out what has happened with Sunahara's birth record. Here is the HDOH’s claim that they have no birth record for a girl listed on their birth index:

ATLANTA (AP) - A Georgia judge has denied a motion by President Barack Obama that sought to dismiss a complaint that would keep his name off the state's ballot during the March presidential primary.

The Columbus Ledger-Enquirer reports (http://bit.ly/wa7YJs ) that California lawyer Orly Taitz filed a complaint in November on behalf of a Georgia resident arguing that Obama isn't a natural born citizen and is not eligible to be president.

Orly Taitz Applauds Birther Victory Handed Down By State Judge In Georgia

First Posted: 01/ 5/12 10:33 AM ET Updated: 01/ 5/12 10:42 AM ET

Orly Taitz, a California attorney and queen of the birthers, won a small victory this week when a judge in Georgia denied a motion by the Obama administration to have one her many challenges to the president's ballot eligibility dismissed.

Taitz, who maintains that Obama is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president -- despite the White House's release of his full "long-form" birth certificate last year -- appeared elated at the decision:

"THANK YOU GOD!!! I AM READY TO CRY! AFTER 3 YEARS OF BATTLE FOR THE FIRST TIME A JUDGE RULED THAT OBAMA'S MOTION TO DISMISS IS DENIED. I CAN NOW DEPOSE OBAMA AND EVERYBODY ELSE INVOLVED WITHOUT ANY IMPEDIMENT," she wrote on her website.

The hearing on Taitz's complaint has been set for Jan. 26 in Fulton County, Ga. Obama will not be required to attend.

Taitz has hit Georgia hard on the birther issue -- as have other complainants -- but this is her first success of this nature there, or anywhere, for that matter. A previous attempt in Georgia resulted in her being fined.

The Columbus Ledger-Enquirer reports:

Taitz represented two soldiers in U.S. District Court in Columbus who sought to avoid deployment by arguing Obama wasn't the commander-in-chief because he wasn’t eligible to be president. Federal Judge Clay Land warned Taitz against filing a frivolous suit, then fined her $20,000 after he denied the second claim.

On her website, she notes the significance of the decision being passed down in the same state where she was so heartily rejected, calling it "particularly sweet."

It's a rare turn of events for the birther die-hard, who has been among the most vocal and most active members of the anti-Obama movement. She was rejected unanimously by a New Hampshire panel last year, after testifying that Obama's birth certificate was a forgery.

President Obama will have to deal with birthersInternational World News ^ | Jan 1, 2012 | Greg Rogers

Las Vegas 1 January 2011 (sic). President Obama has(sic) had a dream run to the White House and hopes to remain there for another term. His chances of re election are diminished by his failure to convince Americans that he is entitled to the office he holds.

There are many Americans who are concerned that Barack Obama is not who and what he says he is. Veterans like Robert Laity are frustrated that media outlets have not pressured President Obama into releasing a real authenticated copy of his birth certificate. There appears little doubt that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii but many people believe that he is not entitled to hold his office as he is ineligible due to the status of his parents. The President's birth certificate would clear up that issue.

Robert Laity is a vocal American who is complaining to have Barack Obama charged with electoral fraud. The issue seems to be that the election authorities do not require a candidate to prove that he or she is entitled to seek an office. It is up to someone to prove that a candidate is not entitled to stand.

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama -- A Jefferson County judge today set a Monday hearing on a lawsuit challenging President Barack Obama's citizenship and right to be on the 2012 ballots in Alabama.Circuit Judge Helen Shores Lee will consider a request by Mark Kennedy, chairman of the Alabama Democratic Party, to dismiss the suit filed against him on Dec. 14 by Birmingham resident Albert E. Hendershot.The hearing will start at 9 a.m. Jan. 9 in Lee's Birmingham courtroom.Hendershot wants Lee to issue an injunction blocking Obama from being certified as a candidate in Alabama. His suit claims he has "staggering evidence" that Obama is using a forged birth certificate and a false Social Security number."Barack Hussein Obama II is not a natural born citizen and is not qualified to be on the ballot as a presidential candidate," Hendershot wrote in his suit, which he said is part of an informal effort in several Southern states to keep Obama off ballots in those states.Democratic Party officials say Obama's citizenship and right to serve as president is a settled matter. Last year the White House released copies of Obama's long-form birth certificate saying he was born in Hawaii in 1961.Obama's citizenship -- and his right to hold the office of president -- has been called into question during both his 2008 and current election bids. Last year, 24 percent of respondents in a USA Today/Gallup poll questioned whether Obama was a U.S. citizen.Federal judges dismissed lawsuits in 2008 and 2009 challenging Obama's citizenship and right to serve as president.Read: The lawsuitDemocratic official's request for early hearing on suit

Lawsuit Filed Against Hawaii Department of Health on Behalf of Duncan SunaharaLawsuit against the Hawaii Department of Health has been filed by Hawaii Attorney Gerald Kurashima on behalf of Duncan Sunahara, Virginia Sunahara's brother. The case has been assigned to Judge Nishimura. Dean Haskins of the Birther Summit will be making a public announcement about this case very soon. Stay tuned for further updates.

Virginia Sunahara was born on Aug 4, 1961 and died the next day. Her death was announced in both theHonolulu Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin. Her name is in both the 1960-64 birth index and 1960-64death index.But when I asked for a non-certified copy of her abbreviated birth certificate the HDOH told me thatthey have no records responsive to my request. On previous requests for other COLB I had been told that I could not get a copy because I did not have a direct and tangible interest. But in this case they flat-out told me they don't have a birth record for Virginia. Even though their birth index says they do.

Either the HDOH lied about having no records for her, or they queried her name and the computer no longer has that record under her name, even though it was under her name when they printed the 1960-64 birth index sometime around March of 2010. What happened to Virginia's birth record? Was the name on it changed to Barack Hussein Obama II so he could have her BC#? The HDOH needs to be audited, to find out what has happened with Sunahara's birth record. Here is the HDOH’s claim that they have no birth record for a girl listed on their birth index: